Trower report continued
MY SCIENTIFIC CONCERNS ABOUT THE NRPBFrom a court case towards the end of 1998 Dr McKinlay was questioned in court about the use of mobile phones. Dr McKinlay is a senior scientist in the NRPB. It is known that roughly half of the NRPB's funding comes from the industries it represents, the other half of its funding comes from the Government. In court Dr McKinlay explained that data on tissue conductivity was supplied to the NRPB by Dr Camelia Gabriel of Microwave Consultants Limited. It transpired that virtually none of the NRPB documents on non-ionising radiation are peer reviewed and that Dr McKinlay himself had not authored any experimental studies. Dr McKinlay admitted he had no biological expertise. Dr Camelia Gabriel is Director of Microwave Consultants Limited and she reports to the Home Office and the Health & Safety Executive. She is also Chairman of the European Standardisation Body.
To summarise, the NRPB subcontract research on microwave radiation to Microwave Consultants Limited; namely Dr Camelia Gabriel. Dr Camelia Gabriel is also a senior consultant for Orange plc and has authored jointly with others the Orange Base Stations Health & Safety Manual (please see Appendices 14 and 15). Dr Gabriel's son, also of Microwave Consultants Limited, confirms the safety of transmitters for Orange plc in school playgrounds (Appendix 16). This dual interest between Dr Camelia Gabriel as representing the NRPB and Orange plc was picked up and reported on, on 19 April 1999, by The Observer where Sarah Ryle writes "concerns are increasing about industry's involvement in research. Some of the NRPB's conclusions have been based on research by Dr Camelia Gabriel, a technical advisor to network operator Orange and Head of Private Consultancy, Microwave (Appendix 17).
The problem as I see it is that when it comes to asking about safety concerning TETRA or any other communication instrument there is not one single independent person to give an answer. Every single person who has a word to say about the safety of police officers is somehow in the "food chain" going back to the communications industry. The communications industry fund the NRPB and the Government who fund Microwave Consultants Limited so every single person has a financial interest in recommending the product.
THE ABSOLUTE PARADOXSince the early 1960s this country, America and Russia have had what is called the non-lethal weapons programme or synthetic telepathy programme. It is very well documented now that in the early 1960s in Moscow the Russians beamed continuous low level radiation (microwaves) down onto the American Embassy causing miscarriages, leukaemia's and other illnesses to the Embassy staff. Since then the non-lethal weapons programme has become very sophisticated indeed. It is used a) as a long-term low level radiation weapon to cause populations illness and
at higher intensities to cause blindness, heart attacks or confusion. Details of all of the intensities are unknown to me but knowing that microwave radiation is accumulative, any effect can only be a matter of time. In quoting this research I refer to documents listed under Reference 15. So sophisticated is this research, and I refer to Operation Pandora Joint CIA/MI6 Operation since the 1960s, Operation Woodpecker USSR 1976, Operation HAARP still running in USA; they are able to define specific pulse frequencies to cause specific brain malfunctions or illnesses. For instance:
Frequency Illness Caused
4.5 Paranoia
6.6 Depression/Suicide
11 Manic behaviour/Anger
25 Blindness if aimed at the head/Heart attack if aimed at the chest
Other consequences of frequencies used but not listed here are hysteria, trauma, lust, murder and cancer, and may all be induced.
The TETRA frequency is 17.6 Hz (waves per second) so as a scientist looking at this data which is well publicised I ask myself, if the illnesses moving up the frequency range are progressive and TETRA is between the frequency of 11 and 25 on this table, what will be the effect of TETRA's 17.6 waves per second on the brains of the police force? This phenomena cannot be denied by the NRPB; it is listed in their own document which I will refer to later in this paper, where on page 26 they have described how at 8 waves per second animals can be made to fall asleep and at different frequencies behave differently in various parts of their brains.
As this phenomena is written about by the NRPB for 8 waves per second I would like to know what other research they have for other frequencies in and around the TETRA range.
HAARP, which is being researched by a nun, Dr Rosalie Bertell, who is concerned about what it represents along with other scientists knows that HAARP is capable of bouncing low level continuous microwave radiation pulsed off the ionosphere to any community in the world and may cause cataracts, leukaemia, changes in blood brain chemistry, changes in blood sugar levels, blood pressure and heart rates.
The paradox of course is how can one system of pulsed microwaved radiation be used as a weapon to cause illness or death and at the same frequency and unless close range, a similar low intensity be used as a safe communications instrument. Following this research I fail to see how TETRA can possibly be safe for the officers which use it.
This argument is further reinforced by a Channel Four document (Reference 16) and I quote: "The telecoms industry has known about American research suggesting there may be brain effects from TETRA for at least a year". "The research suggests that TETRA radios may have a direct effect on the brain's bio chemistry". "The researchers found that balance changed when brain cells were exposed to pulsed radio signals".
On page 4 it is quoted "the Government was warned about the issue last year. The Stewart Report into mobile phones recommended research into pulsed signals and suggested the technology be avoided As a precautionary measure amplitude modulation (pulses) around 16 Hz should be avoided if possible". He continues "what the frequency of 17.6 Hz is doing is duplicating microwave weapons which you buy at arms fairs. So by holding one of these devices to their heads they are putting a small microwave weapon to their head every time they use it". He finishes "but there is enough to warrant asking why the system is being rolled out before the proper research has been conducted into an effect which not only falls outside all the existing regulations but which the Government advises on mobile phones believes it important enough they recommend the technology not to be used and which the military authorities apparently believe is so powerful that they can design non-lethal weapons to disrupt the minds of their targets".
In Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy 2001, Volume 11, Numbers 2-4, Page 9, Simon Best says when writing about microwave crowd control weapons "after 20 years of rumours and speculation the Pentagon has finally confirmed that it has developed a device as part of its joint non-lethal weapons programme He continues "in the UK many of the women protestors at Greenham Common in the 1980s experienced symptoms that they attributed to being zapped by microwave weapons from the US base".
Reported in The Guardian, Tuesday 8 May 2001 (Appendix 18) Stuart Millar and Stuart MacWilliam write "two independent experts on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation have accused Ministers of using the police as guinea pigs by pressing on with the launch of the BT Airwave System in the absence of detailed research into potential health risks". They continue "last year Sir William Stewart's report on mobile phone safety concluded that systems modulating at frequencies around 16 Hz should be avoided if possible in future developments of signal coding". They conclude "low frequency electromagnetic radiation was identified as far back as the 1960s as a potential anti-personnel weapon when the superpowers began conducting experiments into non-lethal mind control devices".
Low level pulsed signals have even been tried in the oceans. It was reported (Reference 17) by Gibby Zobel that the whales and dolphins beached themselves because their delicate navigation systems were damaged by the low level pulses. This is not surprising as like us they are mammals. The comment from the Minister at the time was "it's their fault for being in that part of the ocean when they could have moved away".
Reporting in The Sunday Express, 4 February 2001, Nick Fleming writes "BT advise officers to turn off the handsets when they are near sensitive hospital, breathalyser and speed camera equipment Officers are also being advised to mount speed traps or breath tests only if the equipment is 35 ft from their handsets or 11 ft from radio sets in their cars". He concludes "someone using a TETRA handset will be receiving between 2 and 4 times as much power or energy as if they were using a mobile phone. The low frequency also means about double the penetration into the head".
Another document (Reference 18), Mr Stevens quoting from a US Defence document writes "if the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards there could be unfavourable effects on industrial output and military functions". Listed in this document are all of the symptoms we now come to expect with long-term low level microwave radiation; for example "personnel exposed to microwave radiation below thermal levels experience more neurological cardio-vascular and haemodynamic disturbances than do their unexposed counterparts". Further down the document other symptoms include hypertension, changes in blood, headache, fatigue, menstrual disorders, depression, anxiety and many of the other ailments previously listed.
ADDING UP ALL OF THE WAVES THAT YOU ARE EXPOSED TOAn officer on duty may be exposed to his or her own handset, plus the handsets of officers around, plus the transmitter, plus anything else that happens to be on around them, i.e. vehicles. It may seem fairly easy for people to think that all you have to do is add up the radiation from each source, but in fact it can be very complicated and I would argue so complicated that scientists have yet to agree on a standard formula.
For example when measuring the magnetic part of the wave in Norwich it is known by some scientists that the maximum dose would be 0.4 units. When the arithmetic average was taken it came out at 0.46 above the danger level for the child. When the interested parties came and did their measurements they got the reading to be 0.26 units below the safety level; they calculated the geometric average. Clearly there is a difference between 0.26 and 0.46. When measurements are taken and quoted to you, you should always ask how the answer has been calculated and check the figures. Other ways of measuring waves may be time weighed average, constructive or destructive interference, the polarisation, the nearfield, the farfield, the root mean square, the peak to peak, the electric or the magnetic vectors; all of these are legitimate calculations and in my opinion could be used to make a reading look more acceptable if it was desired.
In Appendix 19 I enclose an e-mail conversation by three eminent scientists who are trying to agree on the best way to calculate multiple waves. The multiple wave phenomena is of concern to me with regards the health of the police officers, simply because I have yet to find anybody who can say for sure the dose that each officer will be receiving. Arguably if the dose cannot be calculated therefore the health of the patients cannot be calculated.
Reporting in Engineering, February 2001 Matt Youson writes about the case where a man had a heart attack and in his journey to the hospital in an ambulance the ambulance crew using their TETRA sets, affected his heart monitoring devices which sadly resulted in the man's death. In an exclusive report in the Manchester News 11 May 2001 Dianne Bourne quoting the Head of Brain Surgery at NASA writes "the Head of Brain Surgery at NASA has even said he would not consider holding one of these to his head (with regards to TETRA). He said the net result is that the police are guinea pigs". Writing in Issue 51 of Caduceus magazine, in an article entitled 'Mobile Phones: The Pressure & Evidence Continues to Mount' by Simon Best, he writes "certainly if mobile phones had been a new drug they would never have got out of the laboratory". He continues commenting on TETRA "a 420 MHz signal producing a waveform that maximises radiation absorption for 3-6 year olds but also a pulse at 17 Hz right in the brains' beta rhythm 17Hz is close to the peak frequency that triggers calcium e-flux in the brain which in turn affects apoptosis (programmed cell death) which can initiate cancer development. Despite this there is a complete lack of research on TETRA's possible health effects". He concludes "consider that you are talking about cumulative pulsed microwave radiation into your head, eyes and other organs possibly everyday for the rest of your life".
A Powerwatch comment dated 2 June 2001 reports in the first paragraph "as far as we can find out virtually no meaningful biological research on the effects of TETRA signals has been carried out. None of this is on humans nor is any on brain functions". In a late study published this month by The Independent entitled 'Mobile Phone Use Can Treble Risk of Brain Tumour', Charles Arthur writes that a research paper studying 1,600 people by a cancer specialist at the University of Sweden will be publishing his research paper on this data when it is finished.
In 1997 the Health Council of The Netherlands Radio Frequency Radiation Committee published their paper entitled 'Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (300 Hz to 300 GHz) (this is within the TETRA range). They warn of interference to embryo development, hotspots inside the body, damage to eyes specifically infants, elderly and the sick. They also comment on interference to metallic implants and pacemakers. In Section 261 they write "the effects of electromagnetic fields occur at lower powered entities when the object is exposed to pulsed electromagnetic fields". I write this because TETRA is pulsed and most of the research which has been done has been done on continuous waves. The inference from these new research papers can only suggest that the symptoms will become more serious as pulsed radiation is arguably more aggressive.
In a recent paper (Reference 19) Dr Hyland who is also a member of the Stewart Committee and of the International Institute of Biophysics in Germany writes in Section 3 "the introduction of TETRA on the other hand gives rise to an increased level of both thermal and non-thermal concern". On page 14 Dr Hyland comments on the expression of calcium ions from brain cells and on page 15 writes a chapter on the magnetic field associated with current surges from the battery of the phone. Many people do not appreciate that batteries can produce magnetic fields that go into the body.
THE NRPB DOCUMENT ON TETRA (Appendix 20)The Governments' NRPB produced their own document (Reference 20) which is a report of an advisory group on non-ionising radiation and TETRA. Each page I quote from I will photocopy and place in the Appendix so that the reader may read the NRPB's research and the reader may compare my answer to that research.
On page 3 (Appendix 21) the picture shows the microwave signals labelled radio signals as a continuous not-pulsed signal. I would argue that this has been measured by the Cambridge researcher Alisdair Philips and has been shown to be pulsed leaving the transmitter going to the officer.
Page 4 (Appendix 22), Section 21 states "some radiation is also emitted from the case". It does not say which type of radiation electric or magnetic or when the radiation is emitted, or the strength of the radiation or what part of the body will receive most of the exposure. In Section 22 "the main exposure to the body should be from the antenna and case of the hand portable". The question arises where is the rest of the exposure coming from and how much will there be? Section 24 refers to the earphone. If an earpiece is used and the smallest possible imaginable crack occurs in the earpiece radiation will have a direct path straight through the auditory canal to the brain. The officer will not even have the protection of the skull. In the rough and tumble world of a police officer where earpieces may be frequently knocked, what protection is there for the officer in checking that the earpieces do not leak?
I would recommend that earpieces should be checked with very accurate equipment for leaks at least on a weekly basis. The earpieces should be of the highest quality possible and definitely leak proof.
Page 5, Section 25 (Appendix 23) "the terminal is mounted inside the vehicle and connected to an antenna mounted on the outside". My concern is what sort of insulation is there inside the vehicle to protect the officers from the terminal inside the vehicle. If the terminal inside the vehicle is not sufficiently insulated from the officers they are effectively sitting inside a microwave oven, except for the windows.
Page 6, Section 26 (Appendix 24) shows that the useful range of a mobile terminal (car) to a transmitter is 56 km. 56 km is a fairly powerful transmitter and again I question if an officer is standing outside the vehicle or inside the vehicle, how much research has been done on the radiation levels being received by this officer?
Page 7, Section 28 (Appendix 25); this diagram shows a vehicle being used as a transmitting station to relay a message 56 km from a transmitter to 56 km to an officer. Again, I question how much insulation there is to protect the officers from the radiation if they are to be used as mobile transmitting stations?
Page 8, Section 37 (Appendix 26); this confirms that the pulses are 17.6 Hz and 35.2 Hz or waves per second. I emphasise that the Stewart Committee warned about using frequencies close to the brain above 16 Hz.
Page 9, Sections 39/40 (Appendix 27) refer to a top output in the table of 30 W and for hand terminals 3 W or 10 W for a vehicle mounted transmitter. My concern is that with ordinary mobile phone transmitters no sooner are they up when an engineer comes along and adds another section, then another section and within a few years the original transmitter is unrecognisable because of additional instruments. With TETRA when it expands to cover all of the emergency services; possibly traffic wardens, the new reserve police force, maybe even park keepers and security officers, I am wondering whether these outputs may be exceeded. In my own mind I find 3 W and 10 W outputs particularly high when in proximity to a living being. If we look at Professor Cherry's table (Appendix 27), it can be seen that in millionths of watts, the long-term exposure can lead to various ailments. On this graph I have drawn a line below which the TETRA power level applies. This is obviously an estimate because when the handset is switched on, there is a surge of power. If you are a long distance from a transmitter the power increases, or on standby the power drops down. Due to the lack of research in measuring TETRA in and around vehicles it is very difficult to place an accurate estimate on this graph at present. Suffice to say that the power on this table is in millionths of watts and Sections 39 and 40 are in watts. For the reader I have enclosed a three page guide of reported biological effects from low level radiation.
Page 10, Section 44 (Appendix 28); the table shows that the TETRA handsets are slightly more powerful than the ordinary GSM mobile phone systems. This is the basis of one of my arguments that if TETRA is pulsed, which is arguably more aggressive and powerful than the ordinary mobile phone, the medical symptoms could arguably be more severe.
Page 14, Section 61 (Appendix 29) reads "hence with TETRA the energy is absorbed in a larger volume of tissue and so is less concentrated". Scientifically I cannot decide whether it is better to have the energy spread over a larger area or concentrated on a smaller area; I will have to discuss this with colleagues. Also in Section 61 the NRPB write "however, since the radiation from TETRA penetrates further into the head that I am particularly concerned about because the most delicate parts of our brain are in its centre for maximum protection and if this is where TETRA is going to reach then I have grave concerns.
Page 15, Section 63 (Appendix 30) reads "VERY LITTLE INFORMATION EXISTS ON THE SAR'S PRODUCED BY TETRA AND PORTABLES. NO NUMERICAL MODELLING APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT". SAR means Specific Absorption Rate and refers to the heat generated inside that part of the body exposed to microwave radiation. I mentioned heat earlier with regard to heat shock proteins protecting cancer cells and to prevent damage to the DNA. I find it absolutely beyond belief that the NRPB can admit they have very little information on a system that is already being used and to say that no numerical modelling appears to have been carried out suggests to me as a scientist that no measurements have been taken to assess any medical damage which may occur to the officers. What experimentation has been done (Gabriel 2000), appears to have been carried out by Mr Gabriel of Microwave Consultants Limited. As this research could possibly affect what may turn out to be brain tumours or spine cancers for the lady or gentlemen officers I would feel justified as a Police Federation in asking which totally independent scientists not connected in any way to the Government or communications industry peer reviewed this research paper and what were there comments?
Page 15, Section 65 (Appendix 30); this section explains that SARs could be up to 4 times larger than those in table 6 above. If the reader looks at the unit at the top of the table after SAR (Wkg-1), the reader can go to Appendix 27 'Reported Biological Effects', and the reader will observe one of the pages lists the medical symptoms expected from SAR doses. The reader will notice that for an SAR of 2 or 3 W/kg, cancer acceleration in the skin and breast tumours may be found. Coming back to the table it shows for the left ear an SAR of 2.88 but in the document below it explains that the SAR could be 4 times larger than this, i.e. you could be receiving an SAR above 8.
Page 11, Section 51 (Appendix 31) (NB: the NRPB bound document has pages 11-13 out of order and I cannot change this, and I apologise to the reader). This table shows that the power output may reach 40 W from a TETRA transmitter. My concern is that the officer will be receiving the radiation from the transmitter as well as the radiation from the handset.
Page 16, Section 66 (Appendix 32); "the main exposure to the body is expected to be at waist level from the antenna and base of the hand portable". My concern with this is the reported cases of cancer of the spine from officers who have carried their hand portables on their belts. To my knowledge 4 deaths have occurred because of this.
"Although there could be some exposure from the earphone if RF current is induced in the cable When the signal goes from the handset to the earpiece, electromagnetic waves are emitted from the cable, i.e. the cable actually becomes its own transmitter. These waves would obviously go through the neck and my concern is that they could affect the sensitive glands within the neck. Another concern, but unproven, came from a dentist who was concerned about the metal in peoples' fillings absorbing radiation and re-emitting it up into the centre of the brain where there is no protection from the skull. This is obviously a very complex research area to go into but nevertheless I feel that this dentist has a justifiable argument and one which should not be dismissed without thought.
Page 16, Section 67; "the situation is complicated by the metal body of the vehicle. It is not evident that this could be relied upon to provide shielding, since the non-conducting parts, e.g. windows of the vehicle are comparable to the wavelength of the radiation". Scientifically what this means to me is that there could be a considerable risk of electromagnetic radiation for the persons either inside or just outside of the vehicle. I find this incredible in so far as the risk is obviously appreciated by the NRPB and yet, as they stated earlier, no numerical modelling has been carried out. To me it appears that the risk in and around vehicles has been overlooked.
Page 16, Section 68; "the data in table 6 suggest that for both 3 W and 10 W vehicle mounted terminals the ICNIRP basic restrictions for the general public could be exceeded if a persons' head were within a few centimetres of a vehicle mounted transmission antenna for several minutes". The question I ask is what if the call is some big disaster emergency and the call may last longer than several minutes, or once the system is upgraded you are waiting for pictures to come through? Have calculations been done for say an accumulative 10 minute call?
NB: The Police Federation may wish to ask whether the dose levels in these tables are calculated as a geometric average or arithmetic average.
Page 16, Section 69; "at these power levels there will be regions in the immediate vicinity of the base station antenna where guidelines could be exceeded". My argument here is similar to the argument above. What if an officer has to remain through duty in the vicinity of a base station or transmitter where even the NRPB's high guidelines are exceeded or the International Commission's guidelines are exceeded? These guidelines, as shown in Appendix 1, are way above what the rest of the world recommends.
Page 18, Section 76 (Appendix 33); "no measurements appear to have been made of the exposures received inside or outside vehicles with externally mounted antennas". My simple question is, if officers are using what could be potentially dangerous instruments, why have no measurements been taken to assess their risk? I find this beyond belief.
Page 26, Section 111 and 112 (Appendix 34). Here the NRPB agree that the phenomena of non-lethal weapons exists because they say that with a frequency of 8 waves per second into the brain, animals can be made to go to sleep, or be stimulated at higher frequencies. To me this simple statement by the NRPB verifies the non-lethal weapons programme as sound.
Page 29, Section 128 (Appendix 35); "HOWEVER THERE ARE LIMITATIONS TO THE REASSURANCE THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE. IN PARTICULAR THEY DO NOT EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT RF RADIATION FROM CELLULAR PHONES MIGHT CARRY A RISK OF CANCER THAT BECOMES MANIFEST MANY YEARS AFTER FIRST EXPOSURE OR THAT RELATES TO INTENSE EXPOSURE OVER MANY YEARS. NOR DO THEY RULE OUT A HAZARD FROM RF RADIATION MODULATED SPECIFICALLY AT AROUND 16 Hz". Here, the NRPB are not ruling out that there may be a risk of cancer to the officers in several years time. Also there could be a risk because of TETRA's unique pulsing to the officers' brains.
Page 29, Section 129; "further research is needed using modern molecular and cellular biology techniques to assess the reliability of the positive findings and to determine the extent and significance of any effects that do occur". Scientifically to me, what the NRPB are saying is that they need to do research to find out what effects TETRA will have on the officers.
Page 30, Section 133 (Appendix 36); "HOWEVER THEY DO NOT EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF A RISK OF CANCER THAT APPEARS ONLY AFTER MANY YEARS OF EXPOSURE, NOR OF A HAZARD FROM RF RADIATION MODULATED SPECIFICALLY AT AROUND 16 Hz". This suggests that cancer and brain damage has not been ruled out as a possibility of using TETRA. As an analogy, this seems to me like a situation where I could go to my GP and ask for some tablets and the GP can say, you can take these but there may be a risk of cancer in several years time, I don't know, or a risk of brain damage.
Page 31, Section 135 (Appendix 37); "A number of recommendations for further research are suggested by the Advisory Group". My observation is why wasn't this research was done before the system was introduced? This puts officers' health at risk unnecessarily.
"Proposals for experimental investigations of the possible biological effects of specific TETRA signals modulated at about 16Hz". Again, I suggest this should have been carried out before it was used on police officers.
"Further studies need to be carried out on effects of amplitude modulation or pulsing on neuronal activity and on signalling within and between nerve cells The likelihood of epileptic seizures could be investigated If the NRPB are suggesting this now, my question stands, why wasn't this research carried out before the officers began their trials with TETRA?
Page 31, Section 135 - Section 5; "HUMAN VOLUNTEER STUDIES SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT TO MEASURE CHANGES IN COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE ARISING FROM EXPOSURE TO TETRA HANDSETS. THESE SHOULD INCLUDE EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECT OF VARYING PARAMETERS SUCH AS THE DURATION OF CALLS, THE EXTENT OF EXPOSURE, AS WELL AS SIGNAL CHARACTERISTICS".
Page 31, Section 135 Section 6; "THE TETRA SYSTEM IS EXPECTED TO BE DEPLOYED WIDELY FOR USE BY STAFF IN EMERGENCY SERVICES. THIS IS A RELATIVELY STABLE WORKFORCE WITH DEFINED PATTERNS OF WORK. IT WOULD BE WORTH CARRYING OUT STUDIES TO EXAMINE WORKING PRACTICES AND CONDITIONS OF EXPOSURE TO RF RADIATION FROM TETRA SYSTEMS. RECORDS OF USE SHOULD BE KEPT WHICH COULD BE OF VALUE IN ANY FUTURE EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES". Clearly this means that the police, although to my knowledge not volunteers, as a regular and stable workforce are absolutely ideal for a scientific study into the long-term effects of electromagnetic radiation from TETRA. The NRPB will use all of this data as an epidemiological study, as recorded in their own document.
Page 31, Section 135 - Section 8; "ONLY LIMITED INFORMATION IS PRESENTLY AVAILABLE ON EXPOSURES FROM TETRA HAND PORTABLES. FURTHER WORK IS NEEDED TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON EXPOSURES FROM HAND PORTABLES AND FROM ANY OTHER TRANSMITTING EQUIPMENT DEPLOYED FOR USE". My simple observation to this statement is why? Why is only limited information presently available on exposures if the system is up and running? There has got to be a risk to the officers from unknown exposures.
